Why AT&T Killed iPhone Google Voice 304
ZuchinniOne writes "The Wall Street Journal has a very interesting article about the likely reasons that AT&T and Apple killed the Google Voice application. 'With Google Voice, you have one Google phone number that callers use to reach you, and you pick up whichever phone — office, home or cellular — rings. You can screen calls, listen in before answering, record calls, read transcripts of your voicemails, and do free conference calls. Domestic calls and texting are free, and international calls to Europe are two cents a minute. In other words, a unified voice system, something a real phone company should have offered years ago.'"
Wall Street Journal (Score:2, Interesting)
People still read the WSJ? Ever since Fox bought it, the slow decline of the quality and bizarre right wing biases introduced into the articles and editorials began driving me away. It hasn't been readable as a news source for at least a year now.
Not a denial (Score:4, Interesting)
That statement only says that ATT was not involved directly in the Google Voice decision.
It does not say whether or not ATT had previously bound Apple contractually to reject all apps of this type..
Re:No. apple answers fcc (Score:2, Interesting)
question 1 answer
Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhoneâ(TM)s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhoneâ(TM)s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the âoePhoneâ icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Appleâ(TM)s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Appleâ(TM)s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Appleâ(TM)s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hubâ"replacing the iPhoneâ(TM)s text messaging feature. In addition, the iPhone userâ(TM)s entire Contacts database is transferred to Googleâ(TM)s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time... ..We are continuing to study the Google Voice application and its potential impact on the iPhone user experience. Google is of course free to provide Google Voice on the iPhone as a web application through Appleâ(TM)s Safari browser, just as they do for desktop PCs, or to provide its âoeGoogle-brandedâ user experience on other phones, including Android-based phones, and let consumers make their choices
question 2 answer
Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Appleâ(TM)s decision-making process in this matter.
question 3 answer
Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications.
There is a provision in Appleâ(TM)s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&Tâ(TM)s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&Tâ(TM)s permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&Tâ(TM)s customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&Tâ(TM)s cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.
question 4 answer
Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application. Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&Tâ(TM)s 3G network.
question 5 answer
In a little more than a year, the App Store has grown to become the worldâ(TM)s largest wireless applications store, with over 65,000 applications. Weâ(TM)ve rejected applications for a variety of reasons. Most rejections are based on the application containing quality issues or software bugs, while other rejections involve protecting consumer privacy, safeguarding children from inappropriate content, and avoiding applications that degrade the core experience of the i
AT&T is not really AT&T. (Score:5, Interesting)
Those interested in how that happened can watch Stephen Colbert explain in a 1 minute 14 second video: The New AT&T [google.com]. If that video is not available, try this one [myspace.com], but that requires watching a commercial.
Re:Apple Admits It, Sort Of (Score:3, Interesting)
Good points, bad points (Score:5, Interesting)
In general a good idea, but I'm not quite sure how you get Qualcom CDMA phones to work on a GSM network.
Transition away from "owning" airwaves. As we've seen with license-free bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the airwaves without interfering with each other. Let new carriers emerge based on quality of service rather than spectrum owned. Cellphone coverage from huge cell towers will naturally migrate seamlessly into offices and even homes via Wi-Fi networking. No more dropped calls in the bathroom.
I've had WiFi-enabled phones connection over Verizon FIOS. They were unusable in WiFi mode, dropping calls and connections like crazy. Generally, phone would ring, you would answer, there would be nobody there. Of course, Verizon also cells cellular service and digital phone over FIOS, so they have a vested interest in VoIP not working, don't they?
End municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies. TV channels are like voice pipes, part of an era that is about to pass. A little competition for cable will help the transition to paying for shows instead of overpaying for little-watched networks. Competition brings de facto network neutrality and open access (if you don't like one service blocking apps, use another), thus one less set of artificial rules to be gamed.
While we're at it, why not end exclusivity deals for power companies as well! Oh wait... maintaining a cable plant is expensive. So expensive that broadband wireless is probably cheaper. Plus, people object to having their street dug up 10 times in a row by different companies, and even with just Verizon and Comcast they have a nasty habit of "accidentally" cutting each other's wires.
Encourage faster and faster data connections to our homes and phones. It should more than double every two years. To homes, five megabits today should be 10 megabits in 2011, 25 megabits in 2013 and 100 megabits in 2017. These data-connection speeds are technically doable today, with obsolete voice and video policy holding it back.
Once you've got a fiber network in place, then it is just a question of replacing the transmitters and receivers, so this is actually doable. Communication companies are reluctant to throw away working equipment, so unless they have competition driving it, they are not going to bother. Wireless bandwidth is not going to double every couple years, in fact, it is going to get worse! The more people using wireless, the less bandwidth available for each customer.
Unasked question: Why is it considered normal and acceptable in the US to pay over $100/month for communication, when most people in the world get better service for a tenth the cost?
The original comment is correct in essence. (Score:2, Interesting)
It gets even better (Score:5, Interesting)
From Apple's response: "Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application."
So Apple "does not know" what Google Voice does, they just need to "ponder" it some more.
I wonder how FCC officials like being treated like idiots. Hopefully Apple is about to find out.
I cry bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
The ability to jump to a specific message has been there for a decade, no one took advantage of it (in fact, most disabled it). All they did was create specific calls that navigated the crazy tree for you. Crawl around in a Meridian for a while...
And voice to text has been in almost all carrier grade switches for at least 3 years. Most charge for it, Google didn't.
flash: firm does not give away product (Score:3, Interesting)
OTOH ATT has to relies on direct payment from customers for real services. It has to provide a level of service to keep customers, a level of service that likely has high marginal costs. So the article states the bleeding obvious. Of course ATT does not like google voice anymore than it liked the competition for cheap long distance or the ability of cell phone users to make intrastate calls at a fraction of the cost of a land line.
What makes no sense is suggesting that an incumbent would provide such a profit destroying service. It would be like saying the WSJ should set up a competing site that all the features of the premium site but at no charge.
Its just the app not the service blocked right? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention making text-messaging free directly takes away something AT&T currently bills me for.
In all fairness, it should be noted that for years Qwest offered a unified phone service to an extent. You told people to call you on your home phone number, and if you didn't answer, it would auto-roll over to your Qwest cell phone. In theory, you should only end up with voice mails on your cell phone number. But Qwest doesn't even offer their own cell phone service anymore, so who knows if they still offer the roll-over.
Still could have contributed (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications.
There is a provision in Apple's agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T's cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T's permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T's customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T's cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.
Makes it seem like though they didn't actually talk to AT&T about Google Voice, they could have anticipated their reaction on the matter, leading to where we are today.
Re:No. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are *no* mobile carriers that offer competative LD rates. Want to call Bermuda on AT&T? If you have World Connect ($3.99/mo) it's 0.19/min. Googe Voice: 0.09/min. If you don't have World Connect, you're looking at 1.49/min.
I've cut my international costs by over 50%. The only bitch is having to top off Google Voice in $10 increments with a $30 cap.
GV starts to change the way mobile devices are used. I don't care what Apple, AT&T or Google say, I'm convinced the reason is for AT&T to keep control and revenue, and for Apple to keep tabs on the interface.
I like this FCC we have.
Very suspicious... (Score:5, Interesting)
For example:
Okay, so Apple is saying that no contract with AT&T affected their decision to remove the Google Voice application from the iTunes Store. But wait, what do they say in the _next section_!?
WTF?
Then they go into "asscovering mode" by saying they don't know what VOIP is:
Personally, I don't have a google voice account. From what I've read, google voice actually uses the normal phone system (so it still requires that you have a phone account). It's just a service.
IMO, Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on. The only argument they have is that it replaces "core functionality" of the iPhone. That argument is completely bogus too, because that is just preventing competition (and may be considered monopolistic behavior). Sure, that's not unusual for Apple. But I think now their position is different. They aren't the underdog in the smartphone industry, they are one of the top dogs. They can't just do whatever they want while ignoring existing anti-trust legislation.
Re:Apple Just Admitted To It - Now You Look Foolis (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of that was free PR, with a few wiggle-room sentences...
Did you collude with AT&T:
"From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration."
Why TRANSCRIPTION is Critical to Google (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't seen it discussed, but transcription is one of the most important features to Google and it is a large reason why they are willing to offer Google Voice for free. Why you ask? Training. Google voice's free transcription is a huge voice to text training database.
I have been using it since before it was Google Voice (e.g. grandcentral) and this was an important reason for Google to acquire it.
Google gets a LOT of value from every voice mail that comes in, is transcribed, and then is rated by users as to how useful it is.
Yes, it is good already, but not nearly perfect and they are working on it for one reason - voice search. And voice search is an up-coming Google killer-app that Bing/MSFT and Yahoo have no answer to.
(Neither does Apple, yet.)
Re:Apple Just Admitted To It - Now You Look Foolis (Score:3, Interesting)
It will be funny to see all the Apple fanboys who were screaming "It was big bad AT&T and not my PRECIOUS Apple who was the bad guy!!!" and how their fanboy minds deal with this news.
You can find a fanboy response here. [daringfireball.net] Although I guess it isn't sensationalist enough for your tastes. Although I don't remember any screaming beforehand. Is it possible to scream in text? I guess there's caps-lock.
Re:Apple Just Admitted To It - Now You Look Foolis (Score:1, Interesting)
It doesn't matter what Apple "officially" wrote. There was a phone call from Randall/AT&T to Steve/Apple saying that google voice can't be allowed on the iPhone and it would be "best" if they didn't allow it now.
That's the way these big companies work. Once you know and connect with someone at another large company that can actually get things done, you tend to cherish those relationships and do things to maintain them.
How many foreign countries does T-Mobile or Verizon have cell coverage in? Ok, how many does AT&T?
215 countries is the AT&T answer. When you get a worldwide cell phone plan from AT&T, you can travel almost anywhere and be covered.
Re:LOL! Where's Your God Now Apple Fanbois? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No. (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I prefer to Think Different by not having an iPhone...
Re:No. (Score:1, Interesting)
Visual Voicemail isn't that complex.
There were already commercial server implementations out there (essentially bolt-ons) for existing voicemail systems, and Apple's VVM specs are actually simpler than most (which are generally similar to the OMTP recommendation).
Plus Apple provide the client software, so overall it's not such a huge burden on the telecom providers (such as AT&T).